Advice for College Football Playoff committee from those who know

Aug. 3, 2014
|

Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis sees a huge challenge in choosing the fourth playoff team, but he doesn't think the coaches of the first team out will face career consequences. / Al Goldis for USA TODAY Sports

by Nicole Auerbach, USA TODAY Sports

by Nicole Auerbach, USA TODAY Sports

No one knows what the next few months will bring for the 13 members of the College Football Playoff selection committee.

They'll likely sacrifice sleep to devour film and analyze statistics. They'll talk to coaches and administrators around the game to expose themselves to a variety of opinions. Then, they'll sit down to make what might be the most difficult decision in sports: Choosing the four teams that will participate in the Playoff.

They are scheduled to meet in person on Mondays and Tuesdays for seven consecutive weeks beginning in late October to formulate the rankings. The final rankings and playoff matchups will be set on Sunday, Dec. 7.

The only folks who have any idea what this process is like are those who go through a similar one for basketball. Even they admit they don't envy the football selection committee; choosing team No. 68 for the NCAA tournament is a whole lot different from telling the fifth-best football team in the country it can't compete for a national championship.

Even so, members of the Division I men's basketball committee can help illustrate the process of selecting and seeding â?? and what those 13 CFP committee members are about to go through.

"It's something where I'm relying on the guy next to me to do his homework, and he's relying on me," said Conference USA associate commissioner Judy MacLeod, a member of the men's basketball committee. "We know we're not curing cancer or doing something really important, but we also realize the responsibility to all these kids and coaches who have put in so much time, and administrators and fans â?? how important it is to them.

What's the best piece of advice you were given before you accepted your role on the committee?

Scott Barnes, Utah State: "There are a lot of hours. This is a low-paying job. Free ice cream and per diem. You've got to do it for the love of the sport and the love of college athletics. It is a lot of time. One former committee member spent some time trying to calculate the amount of time he'd spent in a five-year term â?? the term of a committee member â?? and said that he'd spent one year of his life dealing with all that we deal with. Really, the advice is: Lace 'em up tight, and be ready to watch a lot of basketball. Be committed to serve. This is a daunting task."

Peter Roby, Northeastern: "Be prepared to have one of the best professional experiences of your life. You'll never have a better one. It's going to be awesome. They were getting me excited about what was to come, but they also said to prepare yourself and get a lot of rest going into it. Don't go into selection week fatigued, because it's a grind. â?¦ You want to do justice to all the teams considered, and you want to be fresh, mentally as well as physically."

Judy MacLeod, Conference USA: "A former committee member told me, 'Don't be afraid to reach out to people across the country to get other people's views.' â?¦ In the end, I have to be really comfortable with how I'm voting, and I need to have seen a team. But I think it's good to reach out to people in all different parts of the country to see what they see, and get different opinions. â?¦ Some people who work in broadcasting, some coaches I have relationships with. It's really a mix of administrators, coaches and media."

Mark Hollis, Michigan State: "No matter what advice you're given, it's really a learn-as-you-go process, especially when you get to those most critical points of the process. The critical points are: Who's on the first seed line? Who's on the top four seed lines? Who's the last team in? First team out? Those are moments where you really check all of your past employment and current employment at the door, because you know how big those selections are. I think the biggest difference between basketball and football is basketball you're picking 68 vs. 69. In football, you're picking 4 vs. 5. The other side of it is you kind of have a gut check at 68/69 that it can be a career-changer, where 4/5 maybe isn't. 4 and 5 are both very, very good teams. The unfortunate part of this business is that there are decisions made based on inclusion in the tournament, and that carries a lot of weight on individuals that serve on the committee."

Each individual on the committee approaches evaluating teams differently. How much do you personally rely on the eye test vs. the numbers/stats/advanced stats, or vice versa?

Scott Barnes, Utah State: "There's subjectivity right in what we do. We've got 10 committee members with 10 different perspectives. We all have access to the same toolbox, but we come at it a little differently. I'm a former college basketball player, and I played in the tournament. I think, probably, the eye test for me becomes a little more important, or is more of an emphasis because I've played in the game. I bring that perspective. Not that it's better or worse; it's just different."

Ron Wellman, Wake Forest: "It is a balancing act, for sure. I'm probably a bit more on the quantitative side, looking at numbers to determine the best teams based upon their performance through the year, who they played, where they played and did they win or lose? If we look at just the qualitative and the eyeball test, you can catch them on a good or bad night. That can over-influence you. We still watch an awful lot of games, but in terms of what I emphasize and rely on, it's more the numbers than anything else."

Judy MacLeod, Conference USA: "The data's really good, and you can get pretty much any type of data and analyze it any way. I try to use that as my baseline. But it's really important for me to see teams, and see them more than once. One time makes it a little tough. With the number of games on TV, online, everything, you can go through and watch parts of games. For me to be really comfortable with my opinions, it's very important for me to see these teams."

Bruce Rasmussen, Creighton: "There are all kinds of statistics out there, but if you only went by statistics, then we don't need a committee â?? just plug the information in and spit out the bracket. I think it's very important to watch games. You might see a game that ends up being a 20-point game that, with three minutes left, was a one-possession game. Maybe a key player fouled out. Maybe there was a bad call. Maybe they got a great shot and missed it. Somebody hit a couple of threes in a row. â?¦ I just think it's important to watch as many games as you can and identify the key points in the game and see what happened at those times. I go by the eye test. Certainly you look at the statistics and metrics, but the metrics can be deceptive at times."

The committee has made a point to emphasize strength of schedule in recent years, particularly in regards to non-conference scheduling. You guys have punished teams for not scheduling tough and rewarded teams who challenged themselves. How important is strength of schedule to the selection/seeding process?

Judy MacLeod, Conference USA: "Everybody puts their own level of importance on each factor, but I think it's been very evident the last five years that that has become an important factor. We all know that scheduling is not an exact science."

Bruce Rasmussen, Creighton: "I call it 'intentional scheduling.' It's scheduling that you weren't forced to do, but did intentionally. Obviously, in your conference, you play people and you don't have a choice. â?¦ However, if you take the non-conference, you can see how serious people were about illustrating that they deserved to be considered for an at-large (bid) or that they deserved to be considered for a certain seed line by the way they intentionally scheduled. What did you do that you didn't have to do? Who did you play and what message are you sending to the committee?"

Peter Roby, Northeastern: "Not everybody gets to play each other. You can't compare everybody's results. It'd be easier if all you had to do was see who beat whom, and pick from the teams that played each other. â?¦ You make your best judgments, especially in the non-conference. Did people challenge themselves on the road? Quality wins over teams that are considered good teams? If it's about purely how many games you won and you don't factor in where you played them and who you beat, it's not as fair as it needs to be. That's where I think strength of schedule is helpful. You want to see people went on the road and challenged themselves. That's something they can control. They can't control their conference schedule. Now, in many cases, conference schedules are getting even more difficult to sift through because they're unbalanced."

Ron Wellman, Wake Forest: "If you are talking about total strength of schedule, that's very important. Non-conference strength of schedule is a glimpse at fewer games, and that's important as well. I think we have to be very careful about overemphasizing that part of the schedule because at the most, it's 50% of the schedule â?? at the very most. This year, the committee did a very good job of not only looking at the numerical ranking of the non-conference strength of schedule but also what they were attempting to do. There were a number of schools that attempted to schedule strong non-conference schedules, but for whatever reason some of those opponents did not play as well and did not have as good a year as they anticipated."

Has the committee's emphasis on rewarding tough non-conference scheduling and punishing weak non-conference scheduling impacted the sport? Are we seeing better games because of it?

Ron Wellman, Wake Forest: "There are many very attractive non-conference games. It's been such a discussion point the last five, 10 years, I think teams are responding to that. I've had a number of coaches call me about their non-conference schedule and what they should be doing, what type of schedule would be attractive and impressive to the committee. It is on the radar screens of those coaches."

Judy MacLeod, Conference USA: "There's no question that this has changed non-conference scheduling. You're getting a lot of appealing matchups in the non-conference early that we probably didn't used to see very often. I think that exact conversation is going on right now with schools scheduling football games. Most of the time, football schedules are made further out than basketball, and it's harder to predict. I think that's going to be interesting as we get into this, and see how much strength of schedule affects the football (committee) and if people maybe even change their schedules."

Mark Hollis, Michigan State: "I think it is, and I think in basketball you have a lot of flexibility with scheduling, parts that are within your control. Football is going to be an interesting one to watch â?? Michigan State is one that is scheduling as tough a schedule as we can into the future. It's going to be interesting when you have a team that's played three weaker opponents vs. someone who has played, maybe Notre Dame, USC and Oklahoma. That team goes 2-1 or 1-2. Where do they (the football committee members) make their selection? Is it the team that went 3-0? I think those are important things. You do need to look at strength of schedule."

There are built-in checks and balances, like the recusal policy, but everyone does join the committee with existing biases/relationships with coaches and institutions. How do you guys prevent or maybe cancel out those existing biases and make sure you're selecting/seeding the best field possible?

Scott Barnes, Utah State: "Yes, human nature â?? there would be certain biases because of your background and your perspective, but the integrity, the open dialogue, the trust that the committee members have with each other, I think mitigates that completely. Certainly, if you're a commissioner of Conference X and we're talking about your teams, you leave the room. If you're athletic director of University Y, you leave the room. There are functional sorts of checks and balances, but it starts with the character and the professionalism of the people in the room. That's how we mitigate any of the bias."

Mark Hollis, Michigan State: "It's amazing how well that works. It's probably one of the biggest surprises. No matter where you're a commissioner, no matter where you're an athletic director, when you're in that room it's managed extremely well. The system itself has its ways â?? you have to check yourself out of the room â?? but it's such a collegial environment. That's not to say there's not heated debates or heated conversations. â?¦ As much as I expected it to be collegial, it blew me away how everyone checks their conference or their school at the door."

Ron Wellman, Wake Forest: "We're continually reminded that we're not representing a school or conference. That's a point of conversation regularly in the conference room. We're asked individually to check our allegiance at the door. If someone gets a little off track, they're quickly put back on track by another committee member. That really has not been a problem in the selection process that's noticeable, anyway. We all know coaches and administrators from various schools, but you do your very best to guard against being favorable of unfavorable, biased for or against them. One thing I think we continually think about is that these decisions are so important to our student-athletes, our coaches, the schools, that we've really got to do our best to eliminate the bias that we all come in with."

Bruce Rasmussen, Creighton: "There are 10 members on the committee, and everyone looks at it differently. Your vote is 10% of the vote. If it was a committee of four, I think each individual bias would certainly weigh a lot more heavily. â?¦ What I have been impressed with, and more so than I thought, is the committee is intentionally focused on getting the right teams in the tournament, and getting teams on the right seed lines, regardless of conference affiliation, regardless of their own backgrounds/biases."

How do you handle the reaction/criticism/backlash to your selection and seeding? Do you ever hear from the fan bases that feel snubbed? How often?

Scott Barnes, Utah State: "Oh, absolutely. (Laughs) There's no question. People say, 'You'll be the chair (of the committee) and that'll be a great experience.' It will be an amazing experience. But then I've also got to remember I have a bull's-eye painted on my forehead. I think as committee members, we all understand that's part of the responsibility. We have to make the best decisions we can make when selecting the field. We know with that comes criticism. â?¦ We'll get random letters from across the country that are sometimes emailed or written to all committee members. (Laughs) Some of them are very graphic. Very graphic."

Ron Wellman, Wake Forest: "Well, I don't hear from people who are happy with decisions that were made. (Laughs.) Teams that got in â?? those people are happy. The disgruntled fans you do hear from, from time to time. That takes various forms â?? mostly emails today. You get some letters as well. As a committee member, you just have to remember these fans are passionate. They want their school to be invited to the tournament, to be seeded differently, to go to a different location. They're just passionate and supportive of their team â?? which we all appreciate."

Judy MacLeod, Conference USA: "The weirdest thing was, this year, when we were done I was able to get a flight out that night. I get to the airport and the (selection) show is on, and I walk in to the restaurant where it's on, and I'm listening to all the comments. The people don't know you serve on the committee, and you aren't going to tell them. (Laughs.) But that was a really interesting one for me. We do get some direct emails, some from fans of schools in my own conference mad at me. I want to write back and say, 'I can't even be in the room during any of these discussions!' and, like, do they think I don't want our teams in? Sometimes, it's a head-scratcher. â?¦ If we could make everybody happy, that'd be amazing. But that's not going to happen."

In many ways, this is apples to oranges, but what advice would you give a member of the inaugural College Football Playoff selection committee before the season starts?

Mark Hollis, Michigan State: "Run! (Laughs.) Doing 1-4 is difficult enough, but how are you going to tell that fifth team that it's not as good as the fourth team? They're going to have to come up with eyeball and quantifiable measurements that are going to be able to distinguish that and keep the confidence of the institutions and conferences in play. It's not going to be an easy task by any means, but there are some great minds (on that committee). They'll take the collection of data, and they'll take watching the film, and they'll do the best they can at looking at like opponents, looking at who they played, who did they not play, and come up with that decision. Knowing how tough 68 to 69 is, I know 4 to 5 is going to be a really tough decision."

Scott Barnes, Utah State: "Put the work in. Obviously with the Playoff, there are fewer teams in the field and fewer teams to watch. It is a different circumstance and the metrics are different because of that, but at the end of the day, you're trying to make the most informed decision you can. To do that, you've got to watch games and study and look at the metrics to help make decisions. The more time you put into those efforts, the better the results. â?¦ They'll be scrutinized every bit as much as we are."

Ron Wellman, Wake Forest: "Stay up with the work throughout the season. Don't think you can catch up at the end of the season or the last few weeks. From the opening game to the end of the conference championships, stay abreast of everything that's happening. The selection process will be much more comfortable because those committee members will be much more knowledgeable."

Peter Roby, Northeastern: "You can't let the outside influences impact the decisions that you make â?? the teams, the players and the coaches and their fans have put too much time and effort into this. They deserve as open-mind and unbiased a decision-making process as possible. Know that it's never going to be perfect. People are never going to be satisfied because the fifth team â?? that doesn't make it â?? is always going to be wishing it had. That's the nature of it. Be open-minded to feedback if it's in the best interest of the game of football and the process."